Neither The ICC Nor The US Responds When The PA Falsifies Documents Or Destroys Evidence (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority sometimes bend the truth.

Take for instance in May 3, 2017, when Abbas came to the White House and told then-President Trump about their inculcation of peace:

"Mr. President, I affirm to you that we are raising our children and our grandchildren on a culture of peace."

Palestinian Media Watch captures the moment in a video, along with examples of what the PA is actually teaching Palestinian children to say:

(The complete video is available at the above link)

It just goes to show you that when it comes to brainwashing their children to hate, the PA can really give Hamas and their videos a run for their money.

The dishonesty of Abbas and the PA goes further however, and extends to manipulating the law and distorting evidence.

On May 19, 2020, Abbas -- who has a history of threatening to quit and to annul the Oslo Accords -- did it again, claiming that the PA no longer saw itself as being obligated by its agreements and accords that it had signed with Israel.

Maurice Hirsch, Head of Legal Strategies at PMW, writes that on that day Abbas in fact proclaimed the end of the Oslo Accords:

The Palestine Liberation Organization and the State of Palestine are absolved, as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security ones.

[Wafa, Official PA News Agency, May 19, 2020, Official PA TV, May 19, 2020] [Emphasis added]

The day after Abbas made the announcement, Palestinian PM Shtayyeh released a press release:

“During the meeting, Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Shtayyeh confirmed the Palestinian government's full support to the decision announced yesterday by H.E. President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian leadership that we are absolved of all signed agreements and understandings with the Israeli and American sides. The Prime Minister stressed that we would work on translating this decision on the ground.”

[Office of the PA PM, Press release, May 21, 2020 (http://www.palgov.ps/en/article/230/Remarks-by-Prime-Minister-Dr-Mohammad-Shtayyeh-During-the-Emergency-Cabinet-Meeting)]

And a week later Shtayyeh again confirmed that all agreements with Israel were null and void:

“Today, the Cabinet will finalize plans related to the leadership’s decision, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas, that Palestine is absolved of all agreements with Israel.”

[Office of the PA PM, Press release, June 1, 2020 (http://www.palgov.ps/en/article/231/Remarks-by-Prime-Minister-Dr-Mohammad-Shtayyeh-at-the-Weekly-Cabinet-Meeting) emphasis added]

And that got the attention of the ICC.

The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber requested information from Abbas  “to provide additional information on this statement [by Abbas cancelling all agreements with Israel], including on the question whether it pertains to any of the Oslo agreements between Palestine and Israel.”

Sure enough, Abbas responded -- and lied to the ICC:

“Substantively, the Statement declares that if Israel proceeds with annexation, a material breach of the agreements between the two sides, then it will have annulled any remnants of the Oslo Accords and all other agreements concluded between them.”

[PA submission to ICC - PTC, June 4, 2020 https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_02277.PDF] [emphasis added]

Abbas lied, claiming it was merely a warning and not a declaration. Abbas knew that if he admitted that the PA actually annulled the Oslo Accords, the PA -- and his presidency -- would be null and void as well.

But as Hirsch points out, Abbas lied about something else -- his voluntary confession to a war crime.

During Abbas's original speech, he also proclaimed:

Currently, [the Israelis] have asked the banks not to pay the prisoners, [but] we will pay, no matter what they want. (literally: “against the will of their father.” emphasis added)

And he liked so much how that sounded that Abbas broadcast that excerpt on PA TV 5 times:

Abbas: “We vow to our honorable Martyrs and heroic prisoners – [The Israelis] have asked the banks not to pay the prisoners, [but] we will pay, no matter what they want." 

[Official PA TV, Abbas’ original speech on May 19, 2020, broadcast on May 20, 2020]

However, when Abbas dutifully responded to the ICC request for the text of his speech -- he changed what he actually said:

Eighth: … We pledge to our honoured martyrs, our brave prisoners and our heroic wounded to remain faithful to our oath until victory, freedom, independence and return are achieved...

No mention that Abbas proudly boasted that he was going to continue his pay-for-slay policy.

Why not?

Because 5 months earlier, on December 5, 2019, the The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) came out with its Report on Preliminary Examination Activities, detailing its preliminary examination into situations under consideration for possible investigation. While Israel was one of those under consideration -- so too was the Palestinian Authority:

According to this, the ICC was considering the PA not only for the crime against humanity of torture -- but also for the possible Rome Statute crime of paying stipends to families of Palestinian terrorists (pay-for-slay).

But it's not as if Abbas really had anything to worry about. I asked Lt. Col Hirsch if Abbas faced any backlash for falsifying the document he gave to the PA. He confirmed:

The Prosecutor said nothing. While the court referred to the document, it said nothing about the fact that the version submitted was falsified.

For that matter, the ICC seemed equally unconcerned with the torture and pay-for-slay policy of the PA as well. When the ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened the formal investigation into war crimes

Ms Bensouda said there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes were committed in the context of the war, and that charges could be filed against Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel and members of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. [emphasis added]

While Hamas and "other Palestinian armed groups" were mentioned, it was 'in the context of war.' There was no mention of the torture and terrorist payments conducted by the PA. That would be the same PA that happily met with Bensouda to help her prepare for declaring the investigation of Israel.

Photo by WAFA, the official PA news agency, showing PA Prime Minister Shtayyeh meeting with ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda in February, 2020

It is not surprising then to find another example of the PA's disregard for truth and the law when it comes to the investigation into the death of Shireen Abu Akleh -- and how it is ignored.

It took nearly 2 months before the PA finally turned over the alleged bullet that it claims killed Abu Akleh. What are we supposed to make of that delay?

According to JNS:

the bullet had no “chain of custody,” so the P.A. could not prove it was the same bullet that killed Akleh. As evidence, it would be inadmissible in any American court. The fact that the P.A. waited so long to release the bullet, even though it was too damaged to be of any use, also casts doubt on its credibility.

But leave it to The Washington Post to spin the Palestinian delay in handing over the bullet in a positive light:

The Palestinian Authority on Saturday said it has given the bullet that killed Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh to American forensic experts, taking a step toward resolving a standoff with Israel over the investigation into her death...It signaled that both sides may be working to find a solution to the deadlock.

The fact that the PA has falsified a document to the ICC in the past, might justify a more skeptical view.

On the issue of the nature of the damage done to the bullet, leading physicist and ballistic expert Nahum Shahaf is suspicious:

"the bullet underwent a severe transformation at the hands of a hammer that created a deep depression in its back, which cannot be formed by the projectile's movement alone"...Regarding alterations made to the bullet prior to the PA allowing foreign experts to analyze it, Shahaf says he can detect streaks of crushing as well as an internal depression, which can only be produced by a hammer of enormous weight. The squeezing in question was performed on the back of the bullet and not its front, which smashes on impact. [emphasis added]

This makes the conclusion reached by the US on the incident rival the ICC when it comes to treating the Palestinian Authority with kid gloves. Based in part on the damaged, unverified bullet, the US came to the conclusion that the bullet was likely fired from the Israeli position, but not intentionally. How it was possible to reach this conclusion -- which left neither the PA nor Israel happy -- is unclear. But some kind of conclusion was necessary to try and resolve the issue before Biden's arrival in the Middle East was necessary.

And like the ICC, no official US condemnation of the delay in delivering the bullet or of the unexplained damage to the bullet was forthcoming.

Neither the falsification of a document nor the destroying of evidence by the PA merits a response.

But there is hope for some kind of justice:

The U.N. Committee against Torture (CAT) — a subsidiary of the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) — convenes today in Geneva, where it will investigate instances of enforced disappearances, violent interrogations and the holding of the remains of Israeli soldiers, among other issues. In addition to investigating the Palestinian Authority, the committee will also probe Botswana, Nicaragua and the United Arab Emirates.

In accordance with the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Palestinian Authority was required to submit a report detailing its adherence to the convention.

Not surprisingly, there is no mention of the Palestinian record on human rights -- only on Israel.

Also noted in the article:

The PA report was initially due in 2015, but was not submitted until 2019 — a delay not addressed in the report.

Not surprising -- neither the delay, nor the failure of the UN to think it worth mentioning.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The 15 year plan to convict Israel at the ICC

The International Criminal Court has a list of crimes that are within its mandate to prosecute. The general categories of these crimes are:

• The crime of genocide;
• Crimes against humanity;
• War crimes;
• The crime of aggression. (this has not yet been defined.)

The Rome Statute details the specific crimes that are applied. For genocide:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The first seven crimes against humanity:

• (a) Murder;
• (b) Extermination;
• (c) Enslavement;
• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
• (f) Torture;
• (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

War crimes include such obvious examples as:

• Wilful killing;
• Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
• Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
• Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
• Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;
• Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
• Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
• Taking of hostages.
• Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
• Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
• Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;
• Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
• Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
• Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

You can see a pattern - the worst most heinous war crimes are listed.

But among all these terrible crimes that are spelled out explicitly by the Rome Statute is this one:

• The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Keen eyed observers will note that this is a huge amplification of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which stated "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." By adding "directly or indirectly" it is obvious that the Rome Statute has changed what was originally intended to put a stop to the WWII practice of states actively moving part of their unwilling population into a territory, and instead it was designed for one reason only: to explicitly call Jews moving to their ancestral lands a war crime.

There is no better example of a sui generis law than this.

How did the idea of Jews voluntarily moving to almost completely empty spaces and building houses turn into a war crime on the par of torture or taking hostages? How could  the writers of the Statute allow, as far as I can tell, this to be the only part that is not mentioned explicitly by the Geneva Conventions?

It all started in 1999, when the Rome Statute was being drafted. On August 10, 1999, a group of Arab nations -Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen - drafted this text to be added to the Statute:

The perpetrator, directly or indirectly:
(a) Induced, facilitated, participated or helped in any manner in the transfer of civilian population of the Occupying Power into the territory it occupies.

Given the source, it is quite obvious that this was meant to create an international law that would only be used against Israel....when the time was right.

 The US fought against it and proposed its own wording that would limit it to real war crimes:

1. That the act took place in the course of a military occupation with respect to territory where authority of a hostile army was actually established and exercised.
2. That the accused intended to effect the compulsory transfer, on a large scale, of parts of the population of the Occupying Power into such occupied territory.
3. That the accused effected such transfer of nationals of the Occupying Power into such occupied territory.
4. That the accused intended that such transfer would endanger the separate identity of the local population in such occupied territory.
5. That the transfer worsened the economic situation of the local population and endangered their separate identity. 
6. That the transfer was without, and the accused knew it was without, lawful justification or excuse. 

The US is clearly interpreting the Fourth Geneva Convention Article 49  according to its original written intent, not the joke interpretation that Israel-haters have been using that has now gained currency.

Being a committee, the US text was rejected and the Arab text was watered down, with the result being the wording we showed above.

The Geneva Convention definition  was never tested in any international court as to whether it could apply to Israel and the disputed territories. The ICC's Rome Statute, however, has elevated what was clearly not the intent of Geneva into defining "Jews building houses" as a war crime.

The Arab countries that sponsored this change to Geneva couldn't directly prosecute Israel in the ICC, because it is not their right to do so. Only a state member of the ICC that is the victim of "war crimes" can do that.

Now when you fast forward to today, where Mahmoud Abbas is renewing his threats to go to the ICC, we see the culmination of a process that began in 1999 - during the Oslo process, when it appeared that there might be a Palestinian Arab state sooner rather than later. But even so, the moves by the PLO to get accepted as a state by the UN had this specific idea in mind.

Anyone looking at the situation today can see how the Arab initiative of 1999 was meant to play out eventually - a goal that is now in reach.

It is obvious that this was a long-term strategy by the Arab states to damn Israel. This is only one example of Arab strategy and patience, attributes that the West doesn't understand.

Their goal to destroy Israel is not meant to play out in months or years, but over decades. Western-style democracies think instead in terms of sound bites and election cycles, and they simply cannot think the way that Arabs do.

Over time, this proves to be a fatal shortcoming.

Read More